Steph Driver, who served as No 10 communications director under Sir Keir Starmer, published an Institute for Government guest paper outlining her reflections on her time leading the No.10 comms operation and her recommendations for the new team under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.  

Driver issued a stark warning, stating that: “Political comms is the fastest and most fragmented it has ever been and will only continue that course. The public want light-touch politics but clear and confident updates. With trust in politicians and governments dangerously low, communications must be at full power to inspire and be a guardian of public faith.” 

She highlighted the tension that exists between civil service officials and special advisors; with officials being tasked to ‘explain’ policy, while the spads mission is to ‘persuade’. This leads to a hindrance on external impact comms alongside issues of internal noise, the misdirection of resources and a lack of collaboration.  

“It’s fashionable to suggest prioritising digital strategies, and disregarding legacy media.”

Driver disagrees with the agenda of prioritising digital strategies over the traditional press. She argued: “It’s fashionable to suggest prioritising digital strategies, and disregarding legacy media. This is a false choice. Government comms now means being everywhere, to everyone, all the time, from TikTok on the bus, to the 10pm headlines, to chasing the front pages.” 

Driver said civil service rules “cause a cultural nervousness about being tainted by politics and inhibit the full backing of their special advisers”. She also added that strict rules on civil service neutrality are “holding back thousands of talented potential storytellers” and should be revisited. She highlighted that the rules are “an effective gag” on the 7,000 civil service press officers.  

The restrictions on civil servants speaking in public have been called out by the Institute for Government before. Hannah White, Director of the Institute for Government, and Alex Thomas, who is its Programme Director, have previously called for a review of the communications rules.  

The pair called out the No 10 guidance that bans public servants from speaking at public events that include question-and-answer sessions or where the media are expected to be in attendance. They said: “The strict nature of the guidance implies a very narrow view of what it is that officials do when they engage in public, and a failure to appreciate what the consequences might be of such restrictions. 

“This is an overreach and will damage the quality of government and public discourse.” 

They added: “This guidance will create an unfortunate chilling effect at a time when we should be encouraging more debate and discussion to improve and explain policy.” 

This also raises broader questions about transparency, as openness is an important principle of public life. Public officials, including civil servants, should be questioned about their work, decisions and activities and held to account accordingly. Restricting access means that a small channel of senior officials will know more than the rest of civil society, creating an opaque culture rather than one of transparency which is important for building trust in the public sector. 

“Given Burnham’s innovative ideas for civil service reform, the need for open communication about change is greater than ever.”

The civil service is a heavily scrutinised public organisation in which ministers are often speaking of reforming. However, if the civil service is to reform, the most senior officials should be able to be honest with the public about the areas that need to improve, what has gone wrong, and what has been successful. Otherwise, not only is change difficult to orchestrate, but also difficult to appreciate when it happens. Given Burnham’s innovative ideas for civil service reform, the need for open communication about change is greater than ever.